Thoughts about MSFS 11 [Archive]

Major_Spittle

November 8th, 2008, 18:02

I certainly hope that MS concentrates on making a " truely " scalable game engine for their next flight sim.

One with flight based on wind tunnel physics that can be truely scaled by system performance.

One with model stress/damage based on mechanical physics that can truely be scaled by system performance.

One like FSX that can be supported by 3rd parties for add ons.

I hope that MS makes a game designed to be flexible enough to be expanded upon by them and 3rd parties after release to become the game the purchaser wants ultimantly. I hope they release the basic skeleton of a flight sim with multiple add on packages as they are developed with things like:

Missions
Weather Simulator
Combat
Airlines Simulator
Air Racing

This way MS and 3rd parties can make money through continued support to the product and it can develop over years and fill many roles.

FSX was a good step this direction but the next one needs to be more flexible and concentrate on flight physics, weather physics, and damage physics that can be modeled to take it to the next level. I can't imagine graphics becoming that much better nor would I enjoy better graphics more than better flight modeling.

Anybody else have thoughts on what it will take to get you to upgrade to FS11 and consider it a success?

MCDesigns

November 8th, 2008, 19:17

FSX is already a "truly" scalable title. Granted there is always more room/need for improvements and new features.

I doubt you will see any kind of damage modeling from stress, etc as they took it out from how it was implemented in previous versions, but I agree it needs to be added back in.

I also doubt MS is interested in producing addons to the main sim, there are enough 3rd party vendors for that and I doubt it would be cost effective considering the extra time spent on them.

Graphics can be much improved, more details, photo scenery etc. Obviously it's just what is important to each simmer as to what they want improved. I can't imagine no matter how much is invested into the flight dynamics it ever being as believable as the real thing.

Other than what I have with FSX, I'd like to see added to FX11 cloud shadows, new lighting in general, better overhead performance with more realistic system requirements, more photo scenery with custom autogen, better AI including helicopters with real rotary airfiles, a larger expansion on the living world concept, both on land and in the water, and including more people.

MudMarine

November 8th, 2008, 19:40

How about a decent multi player! And someday, the ability to talk to ATC.

SkippyBing

November 9th, 2008, 00:47

ATC with an IQ above room temperature would be nice!
AI traffic in multi-player, so I don't feel lonelier in MP than offline.
Proper dynamics for the droppable objects so you can do toss bombing etc. preferably include the basics so 3rd parties can make combat add-ons.

Pepere

November 9th, 2008, 03:57

ATC with an IQ above room temperature would be nice!

Amen :ernae:

David

FelixFFDS

November 9th, 2008, 04:34

I certainly hope that MS concentrates on making a " truely " scalable game engine for their next flight sim.

One with flight based on wind tunnel physics that can be truely scaled by system performance.

One with model stress/damage based on mechanical physics that can truely be scaled by system performance.

Doubtful. However, If I understood several statements, flight dynamics will be based off an xml "table" that will then be compiled into the air file. How that will work, I'm not sure.

One like FSX that can be supported by 3rd parties for add ons.

I hope that MS makes a game designed to be flexible enough to be expanded upon by them and 3rd parties after release to become the game the purchaser wants ultimantly. I hope they release the basic skeleton of a flight sim with multiple add on packages as they are developed with things like:

Missions
Weather Simulator
Combat
Airlines Simulator
Air Racing

This way MS and 3rd parties can make money through continued support to the product and it can develop over years and fill many roles.

FSX was a good step this direction but the next one needs to be more flexible and concentrate on flight physics, weather physics, and damage physics that can be modeled to take it to the next level. I can't imagine graphics becoming that much better nor would I enjoy better graphics more than better flight modeling.
[/quote]

That's a given. Remember that the core platform serves Flight Simulator, ESP and Train Sim2. ESP is the commercial product and ultimately gives developers more "access" to the innards of the system. How much of that will make it to the "entertainment" product? My guess is a lot, but there will still be compromises.

My best guess is to watch where ESP is going, and FS/Train Sim will follow.

Bradburger

November 9th, 2008, 05:05

One with flight based on wind tunnel physics that can be truely scaled by system performance.

Personally, I don't think we need this, as I think the current table based system works just fine, and actually gives better results than the other sims out there that by all accounts, use a toned down physics based FM engine which actually isn't any superior to the FS method!

Granted, it could currently do with a few tweaks and additions so other areas of the flight envelope and aircraft types can be modelled that can't at present (MS/ACES, please give Sparks a call!), but unless they came up with a physics based FM engine/model that is far superior to all those used in other sims at present and can actually do what it supposed to do, I'm happy to stick with the way it's been done in all previous versions of FS.

As for aircraft stress/damage, I'd to would like to see that imporoved upon as well.

I'd also like to see more advanced engine & systems modelling also, in the case of the former, the abilty to properly model Superchargers. For example, you could have a two stage-single speed one if needed, plus the ablity to have it switch autmatically or manually if need be. This would open up things a bit more for the WWII aircraft which are limited at present to using a Turbocharger instead, although FSX Acceleration has attempted to model Superchargers, I don't no how much you can do with them.

I think the other areas that need to be looked at is the ablitity to properly model different types of aircraft that FS doesn't do or do well at the moment, such as VTOL types & Bi-planes And of course improved Helicopter FM's!

Cheers

Paul

Pultacatt

November 9th, 2008, 05:32

How about a decent multi player! And someday, the ability to talk to ATC.

Hear, hear!!! Well said MudMarine. When will MS catch up to the likes of UBISOFT et al and realize that there are a lot of folk who fly MP.

So much can be done / developed in FSX for single player, the second you try and implement effects etc into MP it all goes pear shaped and is near impossible.

How ever as it stands FSX multiplayer stability is outstanding and cannot be faulted when flown by Peer to Peer (I don't know about Gamespy connections as never used it).

Combat, as we know it, would be nice and certainly a coup within the simming community but I still can't see MS moving away from their "Politicly Correct" stance. A great shame, much could be done dev / addon wise with this sim aspect.

AI is possible in MP... BUT... One has to have a dedicated server to do it - Our online group has AI KC-135's for AAR, US Navy Fleets (Yankee & Dixie) sailing in the Gulf of Tonkin and a host of other goodies flying around, including a working SA-2 SAM system (still in development to polish off a few bugs and improved SAM models etc) that works either as user operated (via FSX radar) or fully auto (AI), it tracks, locks, fires and guides to any flying member. It uses researched firing solution parameters and accurate missile flight profile, the guy behind this is just starting to work on the damage to the users aircraft, IE: to kill an engine, force a fuel leak etc. Anyone who wishes to witness what we have so far PM me. So many things are possible within FSX, as was said to me on this forum once "one has to think outside the box" - FSX is truly a fantastic platform and I look forward to what comes after it in the future.

So many great points are raised here and I agree with you all :)

empeck

November 9th, 2008, 09:50

I'd like to have an access to material parameters from xml code. :wavey:

MudMarine

November 9th, 2008, 10:24

Here's a though..........LISTEN to what FS simmers want for once!:kilroy:

JSkorna

November 9th, 2008, 10:42

Here's a though..........LISTEN to what FS simmers want for once!:kilroy:

So if 2 users want moving blades of grass worldwide that should be in there?

How about the 3 users who want individual tree leaves to blow in the wind? That would be interesting.

I read that 4 users want to see fish in the waters around Alaska. I wonder if that will make the cut?

Starting with FSX, Microsoft has listened to users more than ever before. Programming choices will always need to be made and all things will not ever be included to everyone's liking.

chinookmark

November 9th, 2008, 11:08

Physics-
Better helcopter flight models
More realistic performance "on the edge": slow flight, stalls, aerobatics, etc.

AI-
Helicopters
Military, including traffic patterns, formation flights, NOE flights, and carrier operations
Random flights: GA and helicopters that fly around randomly, during weekends and good weather, sometimes fly the traffic pattern, do touch and gos, sight see, fly to random local airports rather than having strict schedules. More aircraft parked, even if they aren't scheduled for flights.

Display and Graphics-
Separate display sliders for quantity and quality of AI aircraft, so we can choose a balance between heavy traffic and pretty traffic.
Same for autogen.
Change the way cities are modeled so that they look like cities from a distance. Instead of having buildings disappear with distance (leaving very sparse cities with a handful of buildings), have them "combine" into few large low LOD building that emulates the skyline. From a distance, I think a "lump" of buildings would look better than two or three skyscrapers sticking up in a flat area, and be less graphically taxing than hundreds of individual buildings.

ATC-
So many requests about ATC, I don't even know where to begin. How about spacing the AI so they don't have to go around, handling multiple aircraft in the pattern, and reacting to emergencies?

tommieboy

November 9th, 2008, 11:28

Better use of the graphics card GPU's (SLI, etc.) and less reliance on the CPU. We're kind of stuck in the stone age with this current flighsim's graphic engine. I bet WinXP won't even be supported with FS11 if MS has their way...:d

Lionheart

November 9th, 2008, 11:54

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Major_Spittle http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/images/soh/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?p=32353#post32353)
One with flight based on wind tunnel physics that can be truely scaled by system performance.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Personally, I don't think we need this, as I think the current table based system works just fine, and actually gives better results than the other sims out there that by all accounts, use a toned down physics based FM engine which actually isn't any superior to the FS method!

Bradburger

I agree. I think we shouldnt try to mix models into aerdynamics, but maintain their present 'characteristics' in the cfg and air files. It would be seriously difficult to make parts like wings to react properly in FS. I believe that the airfiles do a great job.

This had actually come up a few months back between us and Aces in which we talked about making the 'aircraft' config file an XML also which would make the entire 'playing field' of configs in the FS platform a singular 'type' of format, (uniform throughout). Basically its just renamed to XML. That was the talk, anyway. I dont know if it is 'in' FS11.

I think some additional tweak capabilities to the aircraft configs should include a more rudementary ability to tune the aircraft, for instance, actual settings of basisc flight characteristics, such as setting Max Cruise at 20,000 feet at 189 Knots GS, gear up stall at 75 knots, gearup, 75% fuel or less, (etc). With the addition of 'tags' in strings, one could set up a plane to properly fly in perhaps 10 min's without even taking off, and have it fly right the first time, and get away with having it take 1 month to get it tuned to fly exact.

Presently its done by a method that seems backwards, where you try to get a 'grouping' of parameters to create a proper flight file. Some think this is fine, but from stepping back and looking at the big picture from outside the box, it seems very antiquated. This 'concept' for 'taggable' 'strings' (modular quick tunes) would be an add-on to the present 'existing' air/cfg file sets.

And stalls... We should be able to have say several forms of stalls available. Perhaps a set of 'modelled' stalls hard wired into the sim, and one ticks which stall the aircraft should usually do. This way, your plane handles more properly in various stalls. (Rutans that mush down, Mustangs that arch over to the right or left, Cessna 182's that nose up, then drop nose fast into a shallow dive, etc).

Thus you would have a list of tickable stall types.

Ok.... Now.. Here is my mind blowing.. Ultimate... Earth shaking... 'IDEA' for FS11.... :d

Have it be based on OpenGL instead of DirectX.

This way, it can be ran faster, it could run on Apple's OS, it could perhaps be more flexible, more effects with better frame rates...

<---- ducks from on-coming veggy assaults... :kilroy:

Also... (one more cool idea). I think it would be cool that if Track IR lowered their prices to a more affordable level, and Aces/Ms made a partnership with them, they could have optional TrackIR Editions shipped 'with' FS11, (actually in the box, say a side-by-side box set, with a cello cover showing the Track-IR device).

I think Track IR is so revolutionary, and should be made available right off the bat with first timers purchasing FS. Its just toooooo good.

Bill

MCDesigns

November 9th, 2008, 12:02

Ok.... Now.. Here is my mind blowing.. Ultimate... Earth shaking... 'IDEA' for FS11.... :d

Have it be based on OpenGL instead of DirectX.

This way, it can be ran faster, it could run on Apple's OS, it could perhaps be more flexible, more effects with better frame rates...

<---- ducks from on-coming veggy assaults... :kilroy:

Bill

Ha, yeah, I'm sure MS would jump at that chance, ....NOT! LOL (have to agree though)

Lionheart

November 9th, 2008, 12:08

Ha, yeah, I'm sure MS would jump at that chance, ....NOT! LOL (have to agree though)

I know.. lolol.. Imagine though. All those other games are mostly OpenGL and run brilliant. DX I think has become an anchor, (my own two cents there). I have been totally unimpressed with it. Go where the performance is. Perhaps make two editions like some other games do, one for dx, one for OpenGL. The biggest issue with FS is frame rates. Even today, I tried to fly around in FSX and it was an off and on slide show, sometimes 18 FPS, sometimes 7 FPS. Most other games never even talk about FPS. Its smooth and nothing is talked of about it.

FS needs a Lamborghini game engine... Bottom line.

Bill

Pultacatt

November 9th, 2008, 16:46

So if 2 users want moving blades of grass worldwide that should be in there?

How about the 3 users who want individual tree leaves to blow in the wind? That would be interesting.

I read that 4 users want to see fish in the waters around Alaska. I wonder if that will make the cut?

Starting with FSX, Microsoft has listened to users more than ever before. Programming choices will always need to be made and all things will not ever be included to everyone's liking.

Whoa, ok I think that was taken a little too literally, I am sure that MudMarine was generalizing there - After all a lot of what FS simmers have been craving for nigh on 10 years has been completely ignored by MS and the MSFS devs, that is undeniable fact.

I am in agreement with MM to an extent, whilst FSX was, somewhat, developed inline with user feedback a LOT of what a MAJORITY of sim users would have liked to have seen was, almost deliberately, omitted - Most of these omissions would have been relatively straight forward to incorporate with a minimum of program size impact (given decent coding techniques).

Lionheart your comments regarding the Flight Dynamics and Graphics engine are spot on and I hope that what you have spoken of here becomes reality.

JSkorna

November 9th, 2008, 17:15

heywooood

November 9th, 2008, 17:15

using OpenGL would be the best step forward -

adjusting landmass rendering at the shorelines and coastlines so that they appeared to rise out of the water instead of float on top of it would be nice

adding more options in the atc panel would be good - being able to declare an emergency or being vectored to the next available airport incase the weather or an accident has closed the intended..etc...

adding airframe damage from overstress and allowing for more realistic belly landings etc...

adding a small, regional map view of the area around the airport you select in free flight would be helpfull - you get to see the plane you select, why not the airfield?
it can be a simple afcad type drawing or a top down view from ingame...

smoother dusk to darkness and dawn to daylight transitions

wildcat400

November 9th, 2008, 17:29

adding more options in the atc panel would be good - being able to declare an emergency or being vectored to the next available airport incase the weather or an accident has closed the intended..etc...

adding airframe damage from overstress and allowing for more realistic belly landings etc...

1.) That would be great! *Weather here in San Diego is terrible, and I have a engine fodded, I need to divert!*

2.) Blown mainmount tires on landing would be awesome. :d

3.) Get rid of gamespy as their main form of logging onto multiplayer.

4.) Put some detail into military bases.

euroastar350

November 9th, 2008, 17:30

More helicopters, more helicopters and more helicopters. Did I mention more helicopters:costumes:

Pultacatt

November 9th, 2008, 17:30

And we also know that simmers are NOT the target audience of the FS franchise. If programming and coding is so easy I am sure that other flight sim programs are just around the corner. If you ever meet the ACES team you may gain a better understanding of what they are up against and their limitations.

Then its truly a shame that simmers are not the target for the likes of FSX etc :(

TBO there are a few other sims "just around the corner"...

I didn't say that programming was "so" easy rather some of the things that folk would have hoped for would have been relatively straight forward given the Dev's obvious (enviable) capabilities. One does not need to meet anyone from the FS dev team to grasp the enormity of the task at hand for ACES, I am sure that we are all quite aware of the rough road that todays software Devs have to travel and we tip our hats to them and appreciate their hard work. All the same if they (ACES or whom so ever) incorporate some, not all, of the things that the potential customer would like to see then this helps them to achieve their goal. A prime example of this is Oleg's IL-2 series.

MCDesigns

November 9th, 2008, 17:34

Whoa, ok I think that was taken a little too literally, I am sure that MudMarine was generalizing there - After all a lot of what FS simmers have been craving for nigh on 10 years has been completely ignored by MS and the MSFS devs, that is undeniable fact.

I am in agreement with MM to an extent, whilst FSX was, somewhat, developed inline with user feedback a LOT of what a MAJORITY of sim users would have liked to have seen was, almost deliberately, omitted - Most of these omissions would have been relatively straight forward to incorporate with a minimum of program size impact (given decent coding techniques).

With all due respect, I'd love to see your info to support those claims. Yes, there are things that "many" users wanted , like better AI that did not get improved in FSX, but based on many threads at the other sites like AVSIM and from what has been posted on the developers blogs, a lot of what users did ask for was looked at and implemented if possible. If anything, there was more interaction between the users and ACES for FSX than at any other time in the life of this franchise.

Without being on the ACES team, we can only guess/speculate at why certain features that "we/you" think that could be "easily" implemented were not.

For instance, I posted at most forums and even sent in to MS that I wanted denser autogen, more detail in the textures and road traffic among other things and low and behold...................

Pultacatt

November 9th, 2008, 19:01

May I apologize to all for advancing this thread way off topic - I will desist with this post :)

MC, I read your comments with understanding and I agree entirely that FSX was built with a noticeable amount of user input and perhaps I should in fact eat a little crow and admit that perhaps my choice of expression could have been better and even guilty of contradicting myself.
However one only has to read this thread for FS11, a wish list, many of the items listed here have been asked for since the dawn (pls don't take me literally) of MSFS and have been overlooked. To make the point I will quote probably one of the most debated subjects and one that has been asked for time and time again (guys I already know the answer but am just making my point): Can we please have, even a basic, combat model. Its an age old chestnut and probably not the best to quote here but it has been asked for repeatedly (and again I am aware of MS's rebuttle - Not the point, we are talking customer satisfaction via a "wishlist" and wanting to be heard).

MC to be completely honest with you and the readership I cannot (and too lazy to go looking for) info to support my claims - But I would like to say that with over 8 years of online flying and getting to know and work with a lot of folk, including dev's and general FS users alike, we all have and continue to scratch our heads as to why some items have not been included; some basic, some impressive and of course the downright ridiculous.

Perhaps not all of us have the means or the where withall to ask for inclusions in the correct manner, I am obviously one of these people - I would not have dreamed of writing MS directly (nor known where / who to contact) for the feeling of being extremely small fry and thus ignored. My own feeling. More than like I am alone in this.

Let me make myself understood a little clearer than I have been able to: I am NOT damning ACES in anyway, they have done a bang up job with FSX and if I could bear their children I most certainly would, their product has given me hours of entertainment and is streets ahead of any previous FS version, and of course some of this acclaim must also go to the likes of yourself who made the effort to have inclusions made possible. I can only look forward to what ACES comes up with for FS11, if FSX is anything to go by then it's going to be Gucci.

MudMarine

November 9th, 2008, 20:10

Sorry, I've been "slammed" a lot for saying that MS doesn't listen to what we want. I didn't mean to start anything. They do get alot of feed back from beta testers but I sometimes wonder if they hear what's being said? I know they'll never pick me to beta test!!:costumes: I just can't stand the missions; flour bombs? The only ones I do in FSX are the RAZBAM A-6 missions.

All I ever asked for FS9/FSX is to be able to do the same thing "real" pilots do. I don't want it to be a combat sim. But I'm a military pilot at heart. I want to be able to file a flight plan and practice at the bombing range. I want to mid-air refuel; and I'd like to be able to talk to ATC to get clearances, etc.

MudMarine

November 9th, 2008, 20:14

robby88

November 9th, 2008, 21:48

.......

All I ever asked for FS9/FSX is to be able to do the same thing "real" pilots do. I don't want it to be a combat sim. But I'm a military pilot at heart. I want to be able to file a flight plan and practice at the bombing range. I want to mid-air refuel; and I'd like to be able to talk to ATC to get clearances, etc.

I 100% agree with you on that one Mud. :applause: Also shoot at a few targets and the occasional drone with a missile. Of course that plus the mission system would give us basic combat capability.

Hopefully MS will make a decision one of these days on whether to revive the CFS franchise as they did with Train Simulator. If there's not going to be another CFS, then at least have combat functionality in FS for developers to make use of if they want. It's a significant gap in their product range that needs filled. I long for the day we can also have ground vehicle and naval simulations. From what I've read in the past at Gamasutra etc, ESP v2 will feature ground vehicle simulation along with some combat functionality and ESP v3 will possibly offer marine functionality. However given the time simulations take to develop, that could be years away.

As to some of the critisms of MS's coding there's a fair bit of new coding in each version of the sim. FSX introduced a new shader based animation and materials system, a new 3D terrain/world system based on the entire planet, a new mdl format based on xml and many other changes that I don't know about. Aces now base all their sims on the same core engine with products such as Train Sim and ESP ahead of FS in the development pipeline. So hopefully core engine developments and some of the features of these other products will find their way into FS too. I'm guessing that there's still another year of development of FS11 going on what Phil Taylor has made known in the past.

I think MS evaluate and consider all the requests for improvement that they know of, according to dev blogs in the past. They evaluate and rank them according most requested, do-ability, cost, where they see the sim going etc, and probably other factors. They can't implement them all. It's all got to be balanced with other new features and improvements.

I don't think Steve Balmer would be all that happy with an OpenGL FS engine. :costumes: Not to mention that such would be at odds with the core platform concept for Aces simulation products. OpenGL is unlikely to happen.

I'd like to see lighting in general improved in the sim, especially environment rendering and lighting. With detailed virtual cockpits that we have these days the terrain seems somewhat flatly lit in comparison.

The ability to have period environments would also be a boon for those of us who like to fly vintage and warbirds.

It's interesting that Aces have moved FS Developer resources from FSInsider to the MSDN ESP site. http://www.fsinsider.com/developers/Pages/default.aspx That raises some interesting speculative questions about future 3rd party development e.g. will an MSDN subscription be required to develop for FS11 or even TS2?

[EDIT: Reading the FSInsider page again I don't think FS designers have anything to worry about - see my post #30 below.]

There's certainly a lot of changes on the way & my guess is that these changes will be mainly for the better though it will be hard to please everyone. Roll on 2010. :icon_lol:

Lionheart

November 9th, 2008, 23:04

It's interesting that Aces have moved FS Developer resources from FSInsider to the MSDN ESP site. http://www.fsinsider.com/developers/Pages/default.aspx That raises some interesting speculative questions about future 3rd party development e.g. will an MSDN subscription be required to develop for FS11 or even TS2?

eeeeeks!

Already, its expensive enough for developers. 3D Max is $4,000.00 USD, Photoshop CS3 Pro is either $1,000.00 or $2,000.00 USD. Cessna via EMI demand an annual charge of $2500.00 USD (besides royalties) to even 'think' about doing payware Cessna aircraft for FS. We cant be stretched to much more, especially with a dwindling market. If more companies go to EMI for annual 'club' charges, and other expenses creep in, it will be too expensive to create payware. An average payware aircraft could go from $25.00 to $200.00.

Lionheart your comments regarding the Flight Dynamics and Graphics engine are spot on and I hope that what you have spoken of here becomes reality.

Pultacatt

Thank you Sir.

It would sure make things easier when tuning airfiles. :d

Bill

kimdahl

November 10th, 2008, 00:16

Hi guys

I would personally like to see some sloped runways and getting rid of the flat airport area limitations. We have seen how many problems this gives when combined with high quality 3rd party mesh products, and the sloped runways would give us some more realistic take of and landing challenges. I know it may be a problem to program AI traffic etc. to use these non-flat airports, but I hope it can be done.

Regards
Kim

robby88

November 10th, 2008, 01:36

eeeeeks!

Already, its expensive enough for developers. 3D Max is $4,000.00 USD, Photoshop CS3 Pro is either $1,000.00 or $2,000.00 USD. Cessna via EMI demand an annual charge of $2500.00 USD (besides royalties) to even 'think' about doing payware Cessna aircraft for FS. We cant be stretched to much more, especially with a dwindling market. If more companies go to EMI for annual 'club' charges, and other expenses creep in, it will be too expensive to create payware. An average payware aircraft could go from $25.00 to $200.00.

Bill

Hi Bill reading the web page again I don't think FS developers have anything to worry about. It looks as if we'll still be supported. Though to develop for ESP one would probably need to purchase a MSDN subsrciption or an ESP license. MS appear to be trying to make FS developers aware of the possibilities of also developing for ESP and it also makes sense for them to place development support for all their products on one site.

quote from FSinsider -

"Flight Simulator enthusiasts can rest easy, for Flight Simulator add-on development will certainly continue. It will be each developer’s option to develop for Flight Simulator only, for Microsoft ESP only, or for both platforms."

http://www.fsinsider.com/developers/Pages/default.aspx

jimjones

November 10th, 2008, 01:58

Better ground handling. I hate the feel of planes sliding sideways on the ground during landing or takeoff. The acceleration f18 is one of the worst in this respect, but there are others. Is it the fault of the plane designers or FSX or both? Or is it just my misunderstanding of what happens in the real planes. I'm not a real pilot.

MudMarine

November 10th, 2008, 05:03

I 100% agree with you on that one Mud. :applause: Also shoot at a few targets and the occasional drone with a missile. Of course that plus the mission system would give us basic combat capability.

Yup, MSFS may not like to admitt it (for what reason I don't know?) but aircraft sometimes shoot at each other and drop bombs.........But in our FSX world the only thing they are are big tubes of metal that go from point A to point B. How exciting is that?!hehe:costumes: OH crap, I forgot to mention the awesome FLOUR BOMBS!!:costumes:

EgoR64

November 10th, 2008, 05:07

More helicopters, more helicopters and more helicopters. Did I mention more helicopters:costumes:

Yes - I agree and an AI Engine that can allow hover control and AI Follow me capabilities.

Cheers !!

Bjoern

November 10th, 2008, 05:37

Tweek

November 10th, 2008, 05:47

- More variation in tiles, plants (Speedtree!!!!), houses, roads, cars, etc...

- NO (real) COMBAT CAPABILITIES (like in X-Plane would be okay; if someone wants to go fully military, they should get dedicated combat sims instead of half-arsed implementations)

I suppose it would be nice to see houses that actually look like they're from the country they're in, instead of every house being taken straight out of the USA. There's no way that American style houses look right in the UK, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, or anywhere that isn't North America!

As for combat, I think the only reason people don't see migrating to dedicated combat sims as a viable alternative is the lack of modability. If Lock On was as easy to develop for as FS (creating new VCs, adding, instead of replacing aircraft, altering flight dynamics, being able to create totally new scenery, etc), then I'd probably see no reason to fly in FS. It is a bit annoying that you have to be limited to very few aircraft types/scenes. Strike Fighters is much better in that respect, but it's looking very dated now.

As for my wishlist:
- Improved flight dynamics. How you can have an Extra 300 included and not be able to perform 'proper' aerobatics is beyond me.
- Cloud shadows. It's unbelievable that our aircraft are still lit up by the sun when it's totally overcast.
- Sloping runways.
- A better effects system. I'm still not a fan of the way smoke looks. You only have to look at other games using totally different engines to see how realistic you can get smoke and fire to look.

SkippyBing

November 10th, 2008, 07:07

- NO (real) COMBAT CAPABILITIES (like in X-Plane would be okay; if someone wants to go fully military, they should get dedicated combat sims instead of half-arsed implementations)

The problem is most combat sims don't model the entire globe, even if they let you add aircraft. So they're far more restrictive than FS.
To start with they could implement proper dynamics for aircraft dropped loads so you could carry out toss and dive bombing, and let you fire guns and rockets. Basically the same capabilities as with CFS which would open the way for 3rd parties to add things like a homing for missiles if desired.

Lionheart

November 10th, 2008, 07:25

- More variation in tiles

Bjoern

Funny, I was thinking about this the other day... Terrain tile textures.

I was trying to figure out why the terrain tile textures seem to smoothly transition in FS9 but in FSX, it looks like that are torn apart and butted up against each other. Roads go to a stop in the middle of no where, etc, like copy/pasted art, (in FSX). But in FS9, they seem to be smooth and ever 'flowing'.

In the graphics world, we have 'tile-able' graphics, where say a picture of a rock wall that is square, can be tiled accross a large area and the area looks virtually smooth with no seams between the many tiled sections. They all blend together.

Perhaps a new graphics system for the terrain tiles for FS11 where the terrain tile is better matched for each other so that the Edges of terrain tile arent messed up or harshly broken, but instead made so smooth in transition that breaks are invisible. That would help the base platform to look more appealing, in my humble opinion.

Just some humble input.

Bill

PS: Open GL...! Open GL...! Open GL...! Open GL...! Open GL...! Open GL...! :d

spotlope

November 10th, 2008, 07:28

I have to say, it's hard to read some of the comments here without getting a little defensive on behalf of the ACES team. I've met with them, had meals with them, and listened to them talk at length about the challenges of developing FS. To a person, they come across as dedicated, incredibly intelligent, and above all passionate about the flightsim franchise. You will never find a group of people who are bigger FS fans than the ACES themselves, believe me.

We've spoken about some of the challenges they face in creating some of these new features, and trust me, things are never as simple as they seem. One thing that impressed me the most was how well-informed the FS development team is on what the public wants. They do read these forums, guys. They also read the "tell_fs" emails they receive, and they pore over the crash reports that get sent in when you choose to notify MS of an error. If what you're asking for isn't appearing in FS version after version, you can assume that either a.) you're in the minority and other, louder voices are pushing your issue to the bottom of the stack, or b.) what you're asking for is far more complex to implement than you imagine, and they're still working on a solution. To say they don't listen to user feedback is just not true. But listening and being able to do something about it are sometimes two different things.

Oh, and Mud -- buddy, FS is now and always has been a civilian flight sim, and also a civil flight sim. I like a good combat sim as much as anybody, but I think adding the ability to shoot down another plane is not part of the FS mindset. They may be developing a combat sim as well (I hope they are, in fact), but I wouldn't expect to see blazing guns in FSnext anytime soon. Not adding combat doesn't constitute ignoring you. They heard you, they just don't agree that it's a priority.

jmig

November 10th, 2008, 07:48

...Oh, and Mud -- buddy, FS is now and always has been a civilian flight sim, and also a civil flight sim. I like a good combat sim as much as anybody, but I think adding the ability to shoot down another plane is not part of the FS mindset. They may be developing a combat sim as well (I hope they are, in fact), but I wouldn't expect to see blazing guns in FSnext anytime soon. Not adding combat doesn't constitute ignoring you. They heard you, they just don't agree that it's a priority.

I can just see the headlines in the NY Times the day after FSx with combat features is released.

Microsoft Builds Simulator to Train Terrorists

srgalahad

November 10th, 2008, 08:04

I certainly lack the technical expertise to discuss programming of any potential future of FS?? but I can see some issues arising from the blending-in of combat capabilities. In our already-paranoid world it was bad enough that there was a lot of negative discussion about FS9/X being able to simulate (and therefore "train") pilots to fly large aircraft into large buildings in an urban environment and the uproar probably was heard in Puget Sound. Now, if the blending of combat capabilities led even a few people to practice (and relish in the images) of firing a couple of smart weapons into the Presidential Palace of Ongobongoland, there would be the extreme PolCorr component immediately taking a developer to task and/or suing to ban all sales of this "terrorist training aid" - yeah, we do have to consider the extremists on both sides.

Regardless of that, we have to remember that MS continued to split the two worlds (gentle and violent) not only as probable appeasement but to protect a separate product line (CFS) which may be in development hiatus, but still on sale. I can't imagine a big corp. cutting their own (future) corporate throats even though MSFS likely outsold the CFS line significantly.

Golden Wings proved there was a niche market for a time-regressed scenario, but as much as I'd like to see - say a "pick your decade menu option" - I doubt we'd ever see MS/ACES devote a whole team to researching The World of 1934 for inclusion (and so much data is hard to find today). Look at the number of airports that were misplaced or not included in FS9 & FSX... how may of the new "look at me! I can fly a 747" buyers would be happy paying extra for a world from before autopilots? Sure there's a segment (us) that would love it, but...

[drops 2 cents in the kitty and steps back]

Rob

SkippyBing

November 10th, 2008, 08:17

I can just see the headlines in the NY Times the day after FSx with combat features is released.

Microsoft Builds Simulator to Train Terrorists

But as has already been pointed out you can already buy combat sims so that situation already exists. It's also arguable that a terrorist is unlikely to actually be able to get their hands on a combat aircraft, actually it'd be far easier for them to get a light piston aircraft, load it with explosives and fly that into the Presidential Palace of Ongobongoland.
Wonder where they could get a simulator to do that....
I think the main thinking that people like Mud and myself are going on (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that with FS we have a whole world to play in and add to as we wish. Occasionaly we like to blow s*** up and it'd be nice to do that in FS rather than have to learn a whole new sim. Plus if I could do a bit of guns only air-to air against a buddy down the Grand Canyon well that'd be pretty sweet too.

IanP

November 10th, 2008, 08:25

As long as it comes as an add-on and NOT part of the base package, I'd be more than happy to see combat available in FSXI. It must stay out of the base package though - that "3+" certification is worth far more to the sim than combat-out-of-the-box is. An add-on, the same way that Acceleration has been done, however, I'd love and definitely get myself.

Ian P.

SkippyBing

November 10th, 2008, 08:41

Ian,

I agree as an add-on is probably the best way all round, the base package will still have mass appeal, plus for those who want it you get the advantage of combat integrated with the sim by the developer rather than as a third party add on.

srgalahad

November 10th, 2008, 09:03

Sadly, the 'other side' is there (a quick search brought out 'mention of the idea' dated 9/17/2001 [Chicago Tribune] and ongoing discussions as late as 2005). Skippy, you're correct in your first paragraph -- Within the aviation security community we had similar discussions about the real and simulated possibilities pre-FS98 - it's just part of the world we live in, but those who see threats behind every tree do have a voice and I'm sure they are heard when the marketing and legal folk get involved. Remember, most of the boxed versions of the combat sims say they emulate "history" not "what if" and some people will be sensitive to the issue. Probably in response to the popularity of some of the addons for sale MS blurred the 'civil' flight sim concept themselves by adding the F-18 to Accel so we'll probably never see a coherent end-point.

OK.. I don't want to hijack this thread any further off the idea of a wish-list so I'll simply add that I agree with MM & Skippy that since the aircraft in the sim DO fire guns and drop bombs, it is easy to wish for it being included in the name of realism.

Let's get another cup of coffee and go back to discussing the technical aspects of FSFuture :kilroy: and on that note, I, for one, would happily pay for a seamless, easy-to-install, historically accurate "GW3" or 1950's-style addon.

Rob

SkippyBing

November 10th, 2008, 09:17

Rob, some sort of historical add-on would be nice although my preferred method would be to let you choose what year you're flying in and have that determine what aircraft and navaids etc. are available. For the aircraft at least you'd just need a Entered Service Year entry in the cfg and you could probably do something similar for the airfields opening at least if not the layout. Navaids may just have to be universally on from a certain date unless someone really wants to go to town creating a database!

srgalahad

November 10th, 2008, 12:50

Rob, some sort of historical add-on would be nice although my preferred method would be to let you choose what year you're flying in and have that determine what aircraft and navaids etc. are available.
Well we're talking MSFS/ACES here so I think it's beyond probability as part of the original boxed set for the reasons of research & 'bloat effect' vs cost.

For the aircraft at least you'd just need a Entered Service Year entry in the cfg and you could probably do something similar for the airfields opening at least if not the layout.
Dang.. if it was hard-coded that would take out all the fun of Tomcats over Pearl 12/7/411 in a recreation of The Philadelphia Experiment :}:icon_lol:

Stand-alone ATC does need more options (selectable crossing runways, IFR visual approaches by choice, into-wind landing runway as the primary or secondary choice - even in IFR ). I know this can be done with AFCADS (to a degree) and in multiplayer (but a lot of MP setups are primarily IFR). I just hate ATC getting snotty at me for flying safely when it doesn't fit the current ATC algorithm :isadizzy:

Wonder if it would be possible to simplify the repaint process (without several addons and file type changes) along the way (a built-in engine to export/convert/import/display to say Photoshop and/or PSP to encourage people).

Along those lines, an simple, included .cfg file editor and a "universal" .cfg template (a la Crimson Skies) would simplify modifying a/c. I know how to do it but easy-DIY does encourage new people to try it. The addon aftermarket has made steps that way, but MS has often bought/borrowed from the outside to improve their product.

I'll be happy if it's just visually complex/accurate and somewhat backward compatible to preserve my costs of addons without a $2000 hardware upgrade.

Rob

Pultacatt

November 10th, 2008, 13:16

- Better ATC for both humans and AI
- More variation in tiles, plants (Speedtree!!!!), houses, roads, cars, etc...
- Better weather engine

- NO (real) COMBAT CAPABILITIES (like in X-Plane would be okay; if someone wants to go fully military, they should get dedicated combat sims instead of half-arsed implementations)

There are currently no Military sims that come close to the realism of flight that MSFS offers by way of weather, NAVAIDS, terrain, instrumentation, flight dynamics etc nor do they offer the scope of expansion. That is why a great deal of people wish for a combat system for MSFS and have done so for a very long time. A blanket statement "NO" is misguided stance without looking at how big the MSFS Military following is and the possibilities - I know that MSFS has and will always be a civilian flight simulator but...

I agree with those who have said (as I have) that if ACES included even just a basic form of combat or make it possible by way of damage effects etc to simulate combat in the next FS release then folk would be more than happy. It's not going to happen, we all know it isn't.

Skippy and Ian have it right on the nose: If the Combat implementation was offered via an optional upgrade or addon pack then it would be much more viable. This would get around many of the nay sayers, legals, Political Correctness issues etc as it gives the simmer the choice to include it or not, if any of the ACES team are reading this and if, if, a combat upgrade is remotely within the realm of possibility please make it fully multiplayer compatible.

"I'll be happy if it's just visually complex/accurate and somewhat backward compatible to preserve my costs of addons without a $2000 hardware upgrade."

Rob that is the best suggestion yet! Well said :)

IanP

November 10th, 2008, 13:42

One thing that I would like them to include, if a military add-on is forthcoming, is proper support for TACAN. Having them as DME only, as is the only way a civilian receiver can use them, admittedly, is a little irritating when you're flying a military jet! ;)

I think, unfortunately, that the multiple time periods things would have to be done through add-ons rather than the base product. I'd love to be able to set the world back to the 1930s, 40s or 50s - unfortunately, as has already been said, the digital mapping data that would be required for landclass, etc, simply doesn't exist, which makes the idea next to impossible.

Most of the changes could be achieved with custom landclass and textures, but doing all the road and rail networks and drawings all the towns and cities would be a very, very, major job and you'd have to do it all by hand.

One last comment, seeing as I mentioned railways... we now have moving cars and boats, can we have moving trains in the next one, please? :d

Ian P.

SkippyBing

November 10th, 2008, 13:47

Trainspotter:costumes:

Dang.. if it was hard-coded that would take out all the fun of Tomcats over Pearl 12/7/411 in a recreation of The Philadelphia Experiment

Well I figure if it's in the aircraft.cfg you can always change it....

Pultacatt

November 10th, 2008, 15:09

robby88

November 10th, 2008, 15:36

As to period support I was thinking mainly from the addon perspective and perhaps SDK and system changes to make it a bit easier to implement. For example to make it easier to create a Golden Wings type addon. Period support would also have to cover AI too. I was thinking along the lines of something like CFS3 xdp files which all simulation objects, aircraft, vehicles and non autogen buildings have. XDP files have both a starting and ending date as to when the object can exist in the sim. That would only be part of the solution as it does not cover autogen objects, or terrain textures. Anyway the more that one looks at it, it's still a massive task and will only become more complex with the trend to use higher resolution data, especially for terrain textures. As a developer who likes to create WW1 aircraft, flying over Northern France with freeways and modern vehicles below destroys the illusion somewhat.

As mentioned above I agreed with Mud as to military capabilities without actual combat in the sim and also agree with Ian's comments too. It's important to preserve FS's rating. I don't know if guns or weapons training missions would affect that rating. Basic SDK support for weapons systems is what I'd like to see so that 3rd party devs can more easily create combat addons. Commercial addons can have their own rating.

Combat is not new to FS. The first version of FS that I flew was FSII by Sub Logic on the Amiga platform, which featured a mini WW1 dogfight combat game. I'm not sure if the MS version of FS2 featured this also.

The 3 new Russian combat sims will probably partially fill the void caused by the absence of a MSCFS, but they won't include the entire world. One would have to create a new map, similar to the situation with CFS3.

BTW my comments and observations in post #27 above on the possible direction of MS sims and ESP were largely derived from media articles, BRW etc, and interviews of, and reported presentations by Shawn Firminger, head of Aces Studios, plus the occasional glance at MS Careers, and also some old blog posts by Aces members. :mixedsmi: The recent blog article by James Governor (http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/2008/09/25/living-in-de-material-world-on-microsoft-train-sim-and-the-virtual-everything/) is interesting and enlightening in that respect too.

Hopefully the platform approach will encourage a flow of technology between products.

It would have been nice to see another MS produced FSX addon adding some new features and systems to FSX, given that Phil Taylor said holidays 2010 is the earliest we could see FS 11. Anyway we've got two years to enjoy FSX as it stands and I'm sure we'll see some great 3rd party add-ons.

Bjoern

November 10th, 2008, 15:57

The problem is most combat sims don't model the entire globe, even if they let you add aircraft. So they're far more restrictive than FS.

Strike Fighters/Wo* isn't.

Why would you need an entire globe in a combat sim (except for ICBM'ing)??

Most of the action is usually focused on a single country and the numbers of people doing a Gulf War II+III-like xyz-thousand miles-round the globe-approach just to do a two minute bomb run is negligible in my eyes.
If this was contained in an add-on, it would be okay. But as a fixed element (and possible bug lair) in a non-shooting flightsim? No, thanks.

Oh, and Mud -- buddy, FS is now and always has been a civilian flight sim, and also a civil flight sim. I like a good combat sim as much as anybody, but I think adding the ability to shoot down another plane is not part of the FS mindset.

Well put! :ernae:

I'll be happy if it's just visually complex/accurate and somewhat backward compatible to preserve my costs of addons without a $2000 hardware upgrade.

Would you ditch the backward compatibility for a better looking and more efficient rendering engine?
I know I would.
(And I hope that's the path Aces will take.)

Excellent idea! Moving trains please :)

Don't ask for a direct relation to your post, but this gave me an idea...

What about an indexing .ini for ground AI vehicles?

FSXI will ship with some basic, generic models for road, rail and ship traffic. Now developers can jump on the train and model some low poly vehicles, like steam engines, special cars or trains like the ICE.

Then they just copy the model folder into FSXI and add an entry to that .ini containing folder name, global region of appearance, probabilities of appearance, travelling speed and whatever else.

This way, custom ground objects could use the predefined highways, water lanes and railways without ever having to rely on a "flightplan"!

Aces would have only minimal development requirements and the possibilities of "customizing" the FS world would increase tenfold!

(Could also be expandable to trees and autogen buildings!)

Lionheart

November 10th, 2008, 16:46

Could also be expandable to trees and autogen buildings!

Bjoern

Now that would be brilliant. Imagine the countrysides with proper architectures...

I had wanted to do this to the FS9 platform.

Originally Posted by srgalahad http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/images/soh/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?p=33717#post33717)
I'll be happy if it's just visually complex/accurate and somewhat backward compatible to preserve my costs of addons without a $2000 hardware upgrade.

Amen!!!!!! :ernae: :applause: :ernae:

Bill

Tweek

November 10th, 2008, 17:04

Why would you need an entire globe in a combat sim (except for ICBM'ing)??

Most of the action is usually focused on a single country and the numbers of people doing a Gulf War II+III-like xyz-thousand miles-round the globe-approach just to do a two minute bomb run is negligible in my eyes.

I think you're missing the point slightly. The advantage of having the entire world modelled means that you could fly wherever you want, rather than simply wanting to travel long distances for your missions. In Lock On, you're limited to a small section of Russia. In Strike Fighters, you're limited to one type of terrain, which is pretty featureless, repetetive and unrealistic. With the entire globe, you could choose to recreate the Battle of Britain over Kent, crack out a Sabre or MiG-15 over Korea, or maybe a Skyraider or Crusader over Vietnam. You wouldn't have to be limited by the constraints of the scenery, like you are in every combat sim I've ever played.

But, I also wouldn't be opposed to it being an addon. I'm still not sure why it bothers people so much, seeing as you'd hardly be forced to use it, even if it was part of the base sim, but I suppose an Acceleration style addon would be a fair compromise.

Would you ditch the backward compatibility for a better looking and more efficient rendering engine?

Yes.

I have heard that true FSX addons may well be compatible with FS11 (unconfirmed, of course), and I certainly wouldn't be against that, so long as it didn't hinder any real ground breaking progress that'll bring FS11 up to a truely new level.

Bjoern

November 10th, 2008, 17:07

Next idea: We have an animation system which also applies to humans. We have human models with quite few polies. Logical consequence?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_BPs6tYhBw
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIJKVDUfqvM

You might catch my drift. ;)

You wouldn't have to be limited by the constraints of the scenery, like you are in every combat sim I've ever played.I don't know which sims you have played but from all combat flight sims I've ever had my hands on, only the IL-2 series has ever taken me to the edge of the modeled terrain.
The whole rest was clever enough to concentrate all the action more in the map centre.

Oh, and if you want true military AI, you'll also need to make them dogfight. And regarding the brainiacs the AI aircraft in FSX are, I'd say you'll be pretty disappointed once you're up against whatever you want to kill.

MudMarine

November 10th, 2008, 18:04

spotlope: Oh, and Mud -- buddy, FS is now and always has been a civilian flight sim, and also a civil flight sim. I like a good combat sim as much as anybody, but I think adding the ability to shoot down another plane is not part of the FS mindset. They may be developing a combat sim as well (I hope they are, in fact), but I wouldn't expect to see blazing guns in FSnext anytime soon. Not adding combat doesn't constitute ignoring you. They heard you, they just don't agree that it's a priority.

READ MY POST! Funny, I didn't ask for a combat sim!!:banghead: A "civil" flight sim......I must be "un-civilize". I guess dropping a bomb means it would turn MSFS into combat sim........:isadizzy: I asked for a sim so I can do what real pilots do! Last time I checked military pilots where real pilots! I'm just glad we have those "un-cililized" pilots that protect our freedom to play our "civilized" games. And I also didn't know we were buds?!

MudMarine

November 10th, 2008, 18:12

I can just see the headlines in the NY Times the day after FSx with combat features is released.

Microsoft Builds Simulator to Train Terrorists

Note: With RAZBAM's A-6 add-on missions you can drop bombs. Also RealFlight may be releasing their F6F Hellcat with working guns and bombs/rockets. That is a "combat" feature. Now I don't read the NY Times but I haven't seen or heard anything about a story concerning FSX with combat features.................Terrorist are going to do what terrorist's do. FSX combat features or not.

spotlope

November 10th, 2008, 20:27

READ MY POST! Funny, I didn't ask for a combat sim!!:banghead: A "civil" flight sim......I must be "un-civilize". I guess dropping a bomb means it would turn MSFS into combat sim........:isadizzy: I asked for a sim so I can do what real pilots do! Last time I checked military pilots where real pilots! I'm just glad we have those "un-cililized" pilots that protect our freedom to play our "civilized" games. And I also didn't know we were buds?!

Seems like you need to cool out a little, Mud. Dropping bombs sounds like combat to me... and yes, it's most uncivil. Sorry for implying that you and I were on friendly terms. My mistake.

heywooood

November 10th, 2008, 20:57

FSX or FSXI can remain civil even if the community can't....

There will be other sims for air combat...RRG Studios is working on a Korean sim using all or elements of the new 1c Games Storm of War engine...

neoqb is working on a WWI air combat sim...

1c's Storm of War:Battle of Brittain will be just the first installment of that developers' new WWII air combat sim

Eagle Developement has the new Black Shark modern helo / jet war sim being released to the west in short order...its already out in eastern europe...

and FighterOps is still going on...

So if M/S wants to limit the combat aspects of their FlightSim franchise to flower bombs and gun flashes without balistics or 3d damage modeling thats ok with me...

1c Storm of War will have moving traffic and trains BtW - and likely so will the RRG Studios project Galba

maybe someday this debate on M/S combat simulation will die a quiet death - its nice to have a civilian non combat flight sim and not have bullets flying at least in one corner of the world.

Maybe we can just assume that the next M/S flight sim will also be non combat and just discuss what we would like to see in it - and save the air combat possibilities for a seperate thread :kilroy:

heywooood

November 10th, 2008, 21:06

I should probably change my avatar and sig. pics for this forum

I love flying airwar sims - but I'm liking FSX for what it offers seperately, but equally

Pultacatt

November 10th, 2008, 22:52

If FS is a true civil orientated simulator and a few people feel that strongly about combat or military aircraft then we best can all our military related addons and say good bye to some of the most talented designers in the business and make a pact together to refrain from flying our F-14, 15, 16, 18 etc etc etc ever again, plane (pun) and simple. :(

Personally (sorry Heywoood, certainly don't mean to offend or go against your grain here) I hope the combat debate never dies until it is incorporated in some fashion within a future version of FS.

To reiterate myself and a couple others: If the combat side of any future MSFS was to be issued as an upgrade or addon then it is the individual's CHOICE to either go with it or not, therefore no one would have the right to feel slighted, ignored or peeved.

Dedicated combat sims past & present are limited in scope and imagination (I am not saying that they do not possess these attributes before some one jumps down my throat) compared to what designers, dev's, scenery gurus et al could offer within the bounds of a future FS release. Can anyone tell me where I can fly a Panavia Tornado (any marque) in Lockon or any other combat sim? - complete with fully functional NAV suite, two seats, accurate weapon load out of my choice in any convievable squadron paint scheme?

The best imaginations and creativity I have witnessed in MSFS come from those sim enthusiasts who put their minds to designing a military scenario and actually making it work within the confines of the tool he or indeed she has to work with. If one could take the future FS and be able to create what ever scenario he or she wishes where ever in the world - today it could be the BoB, tomorrow Korea, the day after Vietnam etc-together with custom addon aircraft, paint skins, effects, home built sceneries where you want them not premade and where they are placed for you this is why one would require the whole world to play with this is why a lot of folk would compliment the ACES team by requesting "combat".

If anyone can tell me of a combat flight sim that offers more than just one or two countries to fly in complete with real world weather, NAVAIDS, 3rd party scenery & aircraft addon & customization and all the other goodies that FS provides then I will gladly shove my foot in my mouth and never say another word on the subject.

When or where ever this question of "combat" crops up in MSFS circles it and those that are advocates are scorned, ridiculed or otherwise told to put up n shut up. This is a disapointing attitude. MSFS Virtual Military Aircrew are not a minority and are a valid part of this hobby as such we should be given due respect as fellow FS aficionados and therefore granted our right to debate & request.

As a past friend & virtual military colleague (and I hope your reading this SK :d) once said "It's only a game, it's only a game" and I have come to admire that comment.

IanP

November 10th, 2008, 23:04

Once you include combat in the base sim, you lose the market that doesn't want it. "Ignoring it" is impossible when the box says "12+" or "Teen" rather than "3+" because the reason for the rating will be provided and it will say "Violence". That's it. That's the end of the sim that's suitable for everyone from 3 to >133.

The only way around this is to put the back-office stuff in to allow for combat, but only make it work with an expansion pack, the same way that carrier ops only work with Acceleration. Will that stifle the creativity? No. There are still ten times as many civilian add-ons uploaded to sites every day compared to the number of military ones. Many of the most creative things to be developed for FS have had nothing at all to do with combat (although, as they are to do with flight, they will still have application within a combat add-on).

The simplistic view of "just ignore it if you don't like it" doesn't work in the real world. Once the content is there, it defines the sim. Much the same way that a lot of people are refusing to switch to FSX because the missions are in there.

Ian P.

Lionheart

November 10th, 2008, 23:19

Ok.. Here is my two cents worth on the FSXI and CFS FSX based platform idea....

Make two.. Both have the same platform. YOu can put planes from each into the other sims. Totally interchangeable. (Similar to the idea of Golden Wings being FS9 but renamed and scenery and planes changed out).

Done.....

Next hill to climb?

Pultacatt

November 11th, 2008, 01:27

Tweek

November 11th, 2008, 01:52

Excellent suggestion :applause:

Agreed. Perhaps they could be linked with sharing folders, so as not to waste unnecessary hard drive space. A Cessna 172 could be kept in the FS** aircraft folder, and an F-16 could be kept in the sharing one, so you could fly in both situations - peacetime and wartime. And like you say, maybe even create the option to install it in the style of Golden Wings, using the entire FS** world as a base, and having it as a separate sim - but fully compatible.

IanP

November 11th, 2008, 02:22

You can do that already, using FSX.cfg - if you create a new "simobject.x=[path]" entry, you can connect to a directory totally outside the sim for objects, so hopefully that will already be being carried forwards into FSNext.

I've made fairly extensive use of different SimObjects folders to allow me to quickly enable and disable FS9 ports, AI models and various other things. It's a useful tool indeed for me.

You've been able to do the same thing with scenery, using the scenery library, since FS5, I believe.

Ian P.

Tweek

November 11th, 2008, 03:03

jmig

November 11th, 2008, 03:25

It seems that not everybody at MS is a total pacifist. I know these aren't all MS. But they had no problem with promoting them on the MS website.

Microsoft Unveils New Titles and Powerful Momentum for Games for Windows

New titles added to the Games for Windows portfolio; Games for Windows initiative and MSN Games going strong.

<table style="margin-left: 15px;" align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="165"><tbody><tr><td style="vertical-align: top;">
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr></tbody></table>LAS VEGAS — Jan. 7, 2008 — Following one of the hottest years in video game history, Microsoft Corp. today announced at the 2008 International CES the addition of new titles to the Games for Windows portfolio a...

CES attendees will get to experience some of the great games of 2008, with six upcoming Games for Windows titles on the show floor: “Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures” (Funcom, Eidos Interactive), “Conflict: Denied Ops” (Eidos Interactive), “Frontlines: Fuel of War” (THQ), “Space Siege” (SEGA), “Turning Point: Fall of Liberty” (Codemasters) and “Jigsaw Too Photo Edition” (Carbonated Games), a game for Windows Live Messenger.
Delivering Great Games
Microsoft announced the addition of nine new Games for Windows-branded titles... New Games for Windows-branded titles announced at CES include the following:
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td class="listBullet" valign="top">•</td><td class="listItem">“Alone in the Dark” (Atari)
</td></tr><tr><td class="listBullet" valign="top">•</td><td class="listItem">“Bionic Commando” (Capcom)
</td></tr><tr><td class="listBullet" valign="top">•</td><td class="listItem"> “Conflict: Denied Ops” (Eidos Interactive)
</td></tr><tr><td class="listBullet" valign="top">•</td><td class="listItem">“Empire: Total War” (SEGA)
</td></tr><tr><td class="listBullet" valign="top">•</td><td class="listItem">“LEGO Indiana Jones” (LucasArts)
</td></tr><tr><td class="listBullet" valign="top">•</td><td class="listItem">“Microsoft Train Simulator 2” (Microsoft Game Studios)
</td></tr><tr><td class="listBullet" valign="top">•</td><td class="listItem"> “Sins of a Solar Empire” (Stardock)
</td></tr><tr><td class="listBullet" valign="top">•</td><td class="listItem">“Space Siege” (SEGA)
</td></tr><tr><td class="listBullet" valign="top">•</td><td class="listItem">“Tomb Raider: Underworld” (Eidos Interactive)
</td></tr></tbody></table>Other highly anticipated Games for Windows-branded titles expected to release in 2008 include “Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures” (Funcom, Eidos Interactive), “Borderlands” (2K Games), “The Club” (SEGA), “Fallout<sup>®</sup> 3” (Bethesda Softworks<sup>®</sup>) and “Frontlines: Fuel of War” (THQ).

IanP

November 11th, 2008, 03:55

Where did anyone say that MS was pacifist? Gears of War? HALO? Three Combat Flight Simulators? I'd hardly say that was promoting pacificsm. :tgun2: :sniper:

What's more funny is looking down that list and going "That was crud. That was crud. That was crud. Highly anticipated? Yeesh!" :icon_lol:

Ian P.

JT8D-9A

November 11th, 2008, 04:17

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqos3j07jzc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZEXGafJKEk
:d:running:

MudMarine

November 11th, 2008, 04:19

Seems like you need to cool out a little, Mud. Dropping bombs sounds like combat to me... and yes, it's most uncivil. Sorry for implying that you and I were on friendly terms. My mistake.

You disagree, fine. Don't use my name and call me out and expect me to ignore it. And don't assume I'm need to cool out. I'm sick of peace-nick cruds who think their freedoms come free! Don't think to tell me what is "civil" and isn't......I seem to remember a civilian airliner that was used to kill thousands of people in NYC. Enjoy the freedom to your opinion provided by thousands of veteran's alive and dead who served their country selflessly.......many of whom dropped "un-civil" bombs.

Here's a forum hint: State your opinion. If you disagree don't use someone else's post to make your point. It may lead to passionate disagreements.

Chuck_Jodry-VJPL

November 11th, 2008, 04:26

Aces has no intention of adding combat to FS , They have hinted (Paul P12C ) there is a possibility it may develop cf4 after FS11. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
That said there is every possibility that some 3PD will pull it out of the hat, the problems are not at all insurmountable but it does require a special combination of capacity to pull it off , the parties involved need to be highly innovative in their use of XML part code , top class in modelling technique and optimization of poly and texture use or the results will be unusable on anything less than a super computer, furthermore the parties in question need a server network to support a custom simconnect dll as well as the bandwidth and architecture to support the traffic .<o:p></o:p>
Having access to the very best minds in the business is also going to be a factor because it’s a team that’s going to be needed , the task is too large to be managed by one person ... these are the steps that must be taken and there are few that fill the shoes .... wish them luck , they need it.

IanP

November 11th, 2008, 04:45

Edited.

MudMarine, you are out of line. You have a PM coming shortly.

Ian P.

MudMarine

November 11th, 2008, 05:11

Edited.

MudMarine, you are out of line. You have a PM coming shortly.

Ian P.

Send it.

MudMarine

November 11th, 2008, 05:30

heywooood

November 11th, 2008, 05:33

ok - lets have nukes and napalm in every flight simulator - what the hell do I care.

For the people who like military aviation - and I am one - lets call it laziness and not pacifism.

I'm too lazy to switch to another sim on my pc for combat - I want it all in one too :173go1:

but FSX has no real combat flight elements - no damage models - no damaged airplane flight model per se - no shredded aluminium, no 20mm canon holes- no weapons effect model or balistics, just muzzle flash and sound effects and thats just not enough for a combat sim ....and even if the next FSXI or FS11 has those things they will come at a price elsewhere in the sim.

why not keep it seperate - FSX and FS11 can offer mil. aircraft and a training environnment that combat sims lack - training squads can be formed online and FS11 can enhance those aspects of the sim...but for the most part I personally would like to keep FS civiian or more accurately non combat and use the sims that are designed for air warfare seperate - where those aspects can be fully and properly implemented

IanP

November 11th, 2008, 05:42

This "debate" wasn't started over wanting a combat sim. Other sim's can be used for combat flying, example IL-2. All that was asked for was the ability to do what real military pilots do on a daily bases in FSX/11. Which is: File flight plans, talk to ATC, go to the bomb range etc. Wouldn't it be easy to control the potential combat by restricting those activites to certain areas? In other words, guns and bombs could only be used on the range. Single play is simple; if you don't want to drop bombs or shoot guns then don't.

PM Sent.

We agree here, for the most part. Unfortunately, as I said before, it isn't that simple. Putting that last bit - the bomb dropping - in as a separately rated add-on preserves the basic sim as being suitable for absolutely everyone.

Acceleration is given a 12+ rating, I'm told, purely because someone can die in one of the missions. It is therefore not considered suitable for children. I know, personally, parents who have specfically gone out and bought FS (2004, in the instances I know of directly) purely because it has no combat in it. Some of those kids will go on to become part of the FS community.

I know this site, specifically, has a far higher than average number of military simulation fans - the logo up the top left says it all. I also frequent a lot of other sites where people aren't vaguely interested in warbirds, military jets or airbases. But please remember that civilian FS add-ons still massively outsell military ones. There are more civilian freeware uploads every day than military. We, here, may have a bias towards one side of the sim, but its a bias that others don't share. We have to remember that.

Ian P.

stiz

November 11th, 2008, 06:01

I use FSX to just fly around and relax, i dont care for ATC or things like that, if we got real atc we'd be sent allover the place, told off, we'd have to listen to people who talk unhumanly fast, also if we got real traffic, we'd have to wait for ages at aiports awaiting clearence .. i'll pass thanks :wavey:

what i would like to see:

Cloud shadows
a new lighting system so things look less "cartoony"
better landclass and coastlines, paticulary in areas outside of the US!
more of a mix in the defult planes, so you'd have like 2/4 modern planes with 3/4 older planes (pre jet age)

More variation in tiles

FSX has over 1000 different texture tiles as it is! :isadizzy: allthough more variations in trees + buildings would be nice :jump:

As for combat, i'd rather they'd do a different sim for it, a bit like they did with CFS2, so use the FS game engine, lower the autogen density so theres less for the PC to do, leave the moddability there for the 3rd party people, and whatever you do, dont make another cfs3! :kilroy:

Also mud, you CAN drop bombs, but its up to the 3rd partys do to it ;)

MudMarine

November 11th, 2008, 06:06

Works for me Stiz! All I ever asked for was the ability to do what military pilots do. How it gets there doesn't matter that much to me. Dropping bombs is a SMALL aspect to that, at lest for me.

SkippyBing

November 11th, 2008, 06:32

Also mud, you CAN drop bombs, but its up to the 3rd partys do to it

You can, but they don't take into account the aircraft's vertical movement at the time of drop so it starts at 0 and accelerates at 1g. This means if you try dive bombing you overtake the bomb and collide with it, and you can't do toss bombing where you pull in to a loop and let go half way through so it follows a ballistic arc to the target area.

spotlope

November 11th, 2008, 06:41

I'd like to state for the record (as if I hadn't already) that I have no problem with combat flight simulators. Hell, I flew for years in an IL2 squadron, and loved it. I usually end up back in FS, though, just because I need someplace peaceful to fly without having to worry about someone sneaking up on me and shooting off my tail. I get enough pressure and stress trying to make a living; it's nice to have someplace quieter I can go when I want to unwind.

That's all I'm sayin' folks. Honest. If MS makes a combat flight sim, I'll probably buy it. I'd love to see what they do with the FSX platform with guns added. But when I want things a little calmer, I turn to a civilan FS. I don't think that makes me a "peace-nick crude", whatever that is.

Pultacatt

November 11th, 2008, 06:59

But please remember that civilian FS add-ons still massively outsell military ones. There are more civilian freeware uploads every day than military. We, here, may have a bias towards one side of the sim, but its a bias that others don't share. We have to remember that.It would be interesting to see the figures between Civilian FS addons as opposed to Military considering the amount of Military payware developers out there. I am sure that civil addons do in fact sell more than military but I am also certain that it is not by such a high margin as one would expect or be lead to believe.

The freeware civilian uploads (not including sceneries of course) are flooded with the same aircraft type (how many versions of the same production model Airbus?) or they are repaints of the said limited aircraft types repeated and they certainly do outweigh the amount of novel Military releases that's for sure - Mostly the uploads these days are repaints be they civil or military so it's kinda unfair to make that comparison.

Mud, I was at one point intending to state a similar fact to yours but for my shame I lacked your conviction. I do so now: A civilian flight sim once stood accused by the ignoramae of aiding & abetting a terrorist group in successfully bringing the world to its knees in shock, grief and disbelief, they didn't use military grade equipment, quite the opposite as we all know - For a while many of us feared the demise of our hobby because of it and to this day I still feel uneasy when flying near that certain part of the Eastern seaboard.

MudMarine

November 11th, 2008, 06:59

cheezyflier

November 11th, 2008, 07:04

I use FSX to just fly around and relax, i dont care for ATC or things like that, if we got real atc we'd be sent allover the place, told off, we'd have to listen to people who talk unhumanly fast, also if we got real traffic, we'd have to wait for ages at aiports awaiting clearence .. i'll pass thanks :wavey:

in FS9 i can run a/i wide open, but i have it turned down because flying anywhere near new york, toronto, cleaveland, los angleles or any other heavy traffic area it's near impossible to respond to atc without skwooing the mic, and often times they want you to change frequencies so often it's maddening. one ting that would be really cool though is if they fixed that thing that makes atc (in some areas) drop your altitude way too late and you end up having to go around.

IanP

November 11th, 2008, 08:36

It would be interesting to see the figures between Civilian FS addons as opposed to Military considering the amount of Military payware developers out there. I am sure that civil addons do in fact sell more than military but I am also certain that it is not by such a high margin as one would expect or be lead to believe.

The freeware civilian uploads (not including sceneries of course) are flooded with the same aircraft type (how many versions of the same production model Airbus?) or they are repaints of the said limited aircraft types repeated and they certainly do outweigh the amount of novel Military releases that's for sure - Mostly the uploads these days are repaints be they civil or military so it's kinda unfair to make that comparison.

Mud, I was at one point intending to state a similar fact to yours but for my shame I lacked your conviction. I do so now: A civilian flight sim once stood accused by the ignoramae of aiding & abetting a terrorist group in successfully bringing the world to its knees in shock, grief and disbelief, they didn't use military grade equipment, quite the opposite as we all know - For a while many of us feared the demise of our hobby because of it and to this day I still feel uneasy when flying near that certain part of the Eastern seaboard.

The scenery uploads are part of the point, though - there are a tiny fraction of the number of military AFDs available compared to civilian, ditto AI, ditto repaints, ditto freeware models. The reason I started playing with AFDs again was because I couldn't find a working AFD file for any of the military airfields in this country for FSX. Then I got sidetracked, but hey, these things happen. :d

Anyway.

Aerosoft's top sales lists:
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="129">http://www.aerosoft.com/shop-re/bilder/imageboxcd.jpg Box / CD (Oct. 2008) :</td> <td rowspan="4" bgcolor="#999999" width="1">
</td> <td width="129"> http://www.aerosoft.com/shop-re/bilder/imagedownload.jpg Download :</td> </tr> <tr class="textlink"> <td width="129"> 1. London Heathrow (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,10227)</td> <td width="129"> 1. AES Credit Pack (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,D10333)</td> </tr> <tr class="textlink"> <td width="129"> 2. PMDG 747-400 X (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,10271) </td> <td> 2. DHC-2 Beaver (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,10389)</td> </tr> <tr class="textlink"> <td width="129"> 3. VFR Netherlands (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,10438)</td> <td width="129"> 3. Manhattan Scenery (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,FS02021)</td> </tr> <tr class="textlink"> <td width="129"> 4. My Traffic X (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,10210)</td> <td rowspan="7" bgcolor="#999999">
</td> <td width="129"> 4. Seahawk & Boxer (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,DFS03223)</td> </tr> <tr class="textlink"> <td width="129"> 5. Carenado Mooney (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,10550)</td> <td width="129"> 5. Piper Cheyenne (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,10283)</td> </tr> <tr class="textlink" valign="top"> <td> 6. German Airports 2 X (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,10250)</td> <td> 6. Frankfurt (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,10223)</td></tr></tbody></table>
SimMarket's top sales lists:
Bestsellers (http://secure.simmarket.com/bestselling_products.php)

PETE DOWSON - FSUIPC3 (http://secure.simmarket.com/pete-dowson-fsuipc3.phtml)
FSPASSENGERS 2004 (http://secure.simmarket.com/fspassengers-2004.phtml)
PETE DOWSON - FSUIPC4 (http://secure.simmarket.com/pete-dowson-fsuipc4.phtml)
ERNIE ALSTON - FSBUILD 2 (http://secure.simmarket.com/ernie-alston-fsbuild-2.phtml)
ANTICYCLONE - ACTIVE CAMERA 2004 (http://secure.simmarket.com/anticyclone-active-camera-2004.phtml)
B. RENK - MyTRAFFIC X V5.2 (http://secure.simmarket.com/b.-renk-mytraffic-x-v5.2.phtml)
AEROSOFT ONLINE - AES CREDITS (http://secure.simmarket.com/aerosoft-online-aes-credits.phtml)
HIFI SIM - ACTIVESKY 6.5 (http://secure.simmarket.com/hifi-sim-activesky-6.5.phtml)
PETE DOWSON - WIDEFS6 (http://secure.simmarket.com/pete-dowson-widefs6.phtml)
FLIGHTSIM COMMANDER V8 (http://secure.simmarket.com/flightsim-commander-v8.phtml)

The same pattern repeats itself at every shop I know of, other than those that specialise in military add-ons. The hundreds of A320s, B737s and DHC-6s out there are present because the market is there for them. Strangely, most of the developers I know prefer developing military hardware, because it's more interesting to model and has more "character", but if they want to bring in money, they do a famous airliner... which then helps them subsidise the next product they actually *want* to do. ;)

Cheers,

Ian P.

Major_Spittle

November 11th, 2008, 08:53

I will be buying Storm of War: Battle of Britain when it is released. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmlk99ENutw&feature=related

For me combat is a must for FS11. I play IL2 right now and love a lot of things about the flight modeling, clouds, and destruction. From the looks of Storm of War it will be a generation ahead of FSX in flight modeling and realism.

Major_Spittle

November 11th, 2008, 08:59

The scenery uploads are part of the point, though - there are a tiny fraction of the number of military AFDs available compared to civilian, ditto AI, ditto repaints, ditto freeware models. The reason I started playing with AFDs again was because I couldn't find a working AFD file for any of the military airfields in this country for FSX. Then I got sidetracked, but hey, these things happen. :d

Anyway.

Aerosoft's top sales lists:
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=129>http://www.aerosoft.com/shop-re/bilder/imageboxcd.jpg Box / CD (Oct. 2008) :</TD><TD width=1 bgColor=#999999 rowSpan=4>

</TD><TD width=129>http://www.aerosoft.com/shop-re/bilder/imagedownload.jpg Download :</TD></TR><TR class=textlink><TD width=129>1. London Heathrow (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,10227)</TD><TD width=129>1. AES Credit Pack (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,D10333)</TD></TR><TR class=textlink><TD width=129>2. PMDG 747-400 X (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,10271) </TD><TD>2. DHC-2 Beaver (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,10389)</TD></TR><TR class=textlink><TD width=129>3. VFR Netherlands (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,10438)</TD><TD width=129>3. Manhattan Scenery (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,FS02021)</TD></TR><TR class=textlink><TD width=129>4. My Traffic X (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,10210)</TD><TD bgColor=#999999 rowSpan=7>

</TD><TD width=129>4. Seahawk & Boxer (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,DFS03223)</TD></TR><TR class=textlink><TD width=129>5. Carenado Mooney (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,10550)</TD><TD width=129>5. Piper Cheyenne (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,10283)</TD></TR><TR class=textlink vAlign=top><TD>6. German Airports 2 X (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,10250)</TD><TD>6. Frankfurt (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,10223)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
SimMarket's top sales lists:
Bestsellers (http://secure.simmarket.com/bestselling_products.php)

PETE DOWSON - FSUIPC3 (http://secure.simmarket.com/pete-dowson-fsuipc3.phtml)
FSPASSENGERS 2004 (http://secure.simmarket.com/fspassengers-2004.phtml)
PETE DOWSON - FSUIPC4 (http://secure.simmarket.com/pete-dowson-fsuipc4.phtml)
ERNIE ALSTON - FSBUILD 2 (http://secure.simmarket.com/ernie-alston-fsbuild-2.phtml)
ANTICYCLONE - ACTIVE CAMERA 2004 (http://secure.simmarket.com/anticyclone-active-camera-2004.phtml)
B. RENK - MyTRAFFIC X V5.2 (http://secure.simmarket.com/b.-renk-mytraffic-x-v5.2.phtml)
AEROSOFT ONLINE - AES CREDITS (http://secure.simmarket.com/aerosoft-online-aes-credits.phtml)
HIFI SIM - ACTIVESKY 6.5 (http://secure.simmarket.com/hifi-sim-activesky-6.5.phtml)
PETE DOWSON - WIDEFS6 (http://secure.simmarket.com/pete-dowson-widefs6.phtml)
FLIGHTSIM COMMANDER V8 (http://secure.simmarket.com/flightsim-commander-v8.phtml)
The same pattern repeats itself at every shop I know of, other than those that specialise in military add-ons. The hundreds of A320s, B737s and DHC-6s out there are present because the market is there for them. Strangely, most of the developers I know prefer developing military hardware, because it's more interesting to model and has more "character", but if they want to bring in money, they do a famous airliner... which then helps them subsidise the next product they actually *want* to do. ;)

Cheers,

Ian P.

I would guess this is because of no combat in FSX, so it doesn't really add much to the game like environmental add-ons do. More realistic Passenger Jets do tend to be more interesting with FSX's limitations because they challenge your ability to fly with realism. Military aircraft are nice to look at and that is about it because the are so easy to fly and land.

Tweek

November 11th, 2008, 09:02

I suppose that begs the question - are those high civilian sales because there are more civil aircraft enthusiasts, or because military aircraft are better catered for in other sims?

Now, by no means am I saying 'FS should have combat because of this' (despite being in favour of it, in addon form), but it's hard to compare the civilian and military market in FS, seeing as a vast majority of civilian simmers are going to use FS. What other options do they have? X-Plane is all I can think of, and it's not exactly a strong contender, given the community that FS has built up.

However, look at the options military simmers have - Lock On being the stand out example, which, in my opinion, is actually a better simulator. If I had more than a choice of seven aircraft, I'd have little reason to go back to FS, when it comes to flying fast military jets. I get the ability to fire weapons (just like real pilots), and it's probably more realistic, too.

So, you never know, if we had a combat addon, which the Aerosoft F-16 took full advantage of, weapons systems and all, that could well be up in the top 2/3 in sales.

edit: Seems Major_Spittle beat me to it!

IanP

November 11th, 2008, 09:54

I agree entirely - if FS became the only open-world combat sim, there would be a lot more military add-ons for it. I was only defending the statement I gave above that right now, civilian sales and downloads dwarf military ones. I also seriously like the look of Storm of War, but remember that we're back to limited era, limited area, with that. It can look a lot better than FS as a result.

In case I haven't made myself thoroughly clear already, my position is that I want the best of both worlds... either FS *and* a CFS based on the FS engine, or FS *and* an add-on pack that brings combat into the sim if the user wants it.

Oh, and can I use this opportunity to agree with the earlier comment not to repeat the farce that was CFS3, please? I didn't mind the sim itself that much, but the stupid "commander" parts just drove me up the wall!

Ian P.

MudMarine

November 11th, 2008, 10:35

MudMarine

November 11th, 2008, 10:41

Pultacatt: I still don't fly near that area......

srgalahad

November 11th, 2008, 11:04

I guess it might be about choice? If there were another combat sim that came as close to the level of realism the FSX world has, then it would take care of that need. But there isn't. Ultimately it is MSFS choice to design the sim they want it for the marketplace. And our choice as simmers to express what we'd like to see in our FS world.

I believe that there are many more GA and commercial tube simmers than military. But one shouldn't be overlooked to favor another? Comes back to money again and the ability to make add-on's and sell them!:d Maybe someday we'll have that perfect combination.........

Amen!

There we go... back to the MSFSxx... IF MS/ACES were to enable "realistic loads" and simulation then we'd be able to have ADD-ONS that realistically simulated passenger loading (even with cattle prods at some airlines), ramp rats tossing your suitcase off the plane and missing the cart/conveyor, UPS guys racing to see who could unload a 747 the fastest, and F-18's that could toss-bomb.

As is, the concept has been to focus on FLIGHT Simulation where we enjoy the pleasures, test and frustrations of operating an aircraft, not it's loads, cargo or ordinance ... and I'm quite happy to stay there. IF the other bits are enabled at source, the after-market may allow you to buy ways to load and unload whatever you choose to carry.

We, the people... have already shown there is interest in parachutists, waterbombers, .50cal., OR a pure, clean Flight sim that runs on something smaller than a Cray. I think the message expressed so many ways here is fairly clear ... enable us (and give us the tools) to choose how we build upon the basic sim to suit our preferences.

Rob

Lionheart

November 11th, 2008, 11:17

If I had rockets and guns in FS, I would use them. Not all the time as I am not into the entire scene of shooting things. But there are times when I need to vent and its one way of doing it. That or get out my COD discs and go hunting, lol..

But why cant FS have combat? I dont see an issue here. At least guns, tracers, bombs, rockets, etc. Like I said though, its easy enough to make a sister game that uses the same platform and have weapons in that one. But like with FSX Deluxe having added features, one could have a 'FS11 Defense' series or something along those lines. (Perhaps it could even be like Accelleration where it adds the guns/rockets/etc into the existing platform and perhaps creates a base 'splinter' platform based off the original 'FS11' folder/package and creates the illusion of a totally new sim (new sim bootup windows for the combat version, etc), and still keep the original as the original, so you would have 2 versions of start icons, and less room is used on the HD, (same terrain tiles are re-used, etc).

I hate to see things limited. There are so many options, and the more options, the more possibilities, the more people are happy, etc, etc. Why limit things..

:d

Bill

Bjoern

November 11th, 2008, 11:27

Make two.. Both have the same platform. YOu can put planes from each into the other sims. Totally interchangeable. (Similar to the idea of Golden Wings being FS9 but renamed and scenery and planes changed out).

Exactemundo.

FSX has over 1000 different texture tiles as it is! :isadizzy:

Over 1000 aren't enough to accurately depict terrain though. At least not outside of North America.

Smaller, but more tiles combined with better landclass resolution and a detached road network (no more paint on the bitmaps) could be the next level of accurate terrain rendering.

EasyEd

November 11th, 2008, 11:42

Tweek

November 11th, 2008, 13:04

One example that comes to mind are the guys flying transcontinental heavies for hours in multiplayer shouldn't have to risk some idiot in an F16 having the opportunity to act on thinking it'll be fun to shoot down this 767 and ruin his day.

Perhaps the addon could install right into the main sim, Acceleration style, but allow the individual user to toggle weapons/damage on and off, whenever they please. And if you didn't have the addon pack, then you simply wouldn't be able to see weapons or get shot down, anyway.

Major_Spittle

November 11th, 2008, 14:04

Hey All,

Interesting thread. For a while we had the battle of the avatars and we've had separate but equal - where's that ring a bell from? Can't wait to see what else comes up.

As far as combat in MSFS I think keep them separate. One version allowing military combat the other not. Using the same engine is fine but I can see too much potential for conflict. Simple fact is people simply will not play nice in the FS sandbox. One example that comes to mind are the guys flying transcontinental heavies for hours in multiplayer shouldn't have to risk some idiot in an F16 having the opportunity to act on thinking it'll be fun to shoot down this 767 and ruin his day.

-Ed-

I agree that if there is combat that MP should have a way to exclude combat on rooms/servers. I think this can easily be done by having an option when setting up the room/server that disallows damage modeling and aircraft fire. The best way as usual would be to have a password on the room and kick players as need which is basically what people do now for the undesired element that appears in open rooms.

I think many people would really enjoy a MP mission that perhaps involves "Red vs Blue" carrier groups or such and the ability to rearm/repair/refuel on your carrier so you could have your mini war in the pacific. I would love to have a WWII battle like that in which there are objectives. Something in which team work and strategy would be rewarded. :ernae:

GT182

November 11th, 2008, 16:06

As far as combat in MSFS I think keep them separate. One version allowing military combat the other not. Using the same engine is fine but I can see too much potential for conflict. Simple fact is people simply will not play nice in the FS sandbox.

-Ed-

I agree on keeping GA and Combat separate in any MSFS sim. But at least give us the choice to fly either one or both. If one or the sims are needed to keep them separate, that's fine with me. I'd more than like buy both anyways and that would be a plus for the developer/publisher.... more money in their pockets. But at least many of us would be happier. Especially those of us that were disillusioned with the CFS series that they pooped out.

And to your " people will not play nice" statement Ed. There are those out there that never have and never will play nice in any combat or noncombat sim. That's just the way of the beast. It's up to those that play fair and the developers to weed them out of online play.

riptide

November 11th, 2008, 16:37

If it is realism you're after, then IMHO MSFS can't be beat. It has very realistic simulated weather, terrain, navaids, cockpit instrumentation, geographical features and I could go on and on. Aircraft flight dynamics (both military and commercial) can be made quite realistic also.

Those are the reasons FSX is the game of choice for the FS online military squadron I'm in now.

True, we have lived with very limited "combat" effects. Some add-ons help (flak effects, ground fires/explosions., scenery objects etc.).

The FSX simconnect program has let us have launchable SAMs (aimable and tracking) and AI aircraft (KC-135 tankers/B-66/RC-121 etc.) and landable carriers in multiplayer mode. But this is only because we have a brilliant programmer in our group.

What would be nice would be a user friendly interface eliminating the need to use coding to set more simconnect activities.

So, thank you Microsoft for the great game and for opening it up a little for military stuff. We are a niche and aren't the majority but we are out here. We have our cup in hand for a few more capabilities (you know what we would like!:applause:). :icon30:

heywooood

November 11th, 2008, 17:25

there is one form of combat I'd really love to see in FSX -

Fire Fighting...if raging forest fire effects could be rendered and water tanking simulated with accurate FAC ATC and realistic battalion co-ordination on the ground that would make for some real fine mission packs I would think...complete with awards etc it might be really gratifying -

mixed airial assests like helo's and Trackers and Broncos etc...maybe as a FAC you could call in a MARS drop or the big DC-10 tanker

take the challenge to maintain your position in the the pattern - take direction properly and hit the water drops perfectly and then go retank and return

Imagine the sky going blood red as the fire crests the ridge and begins to threaten homes on the eastern slope - time is running out and the sun is going down...

hmmm....

spotlope

November 11th, 2008, 18:30

That sounds like a challenge I'd like. And of course, if the physics were sufficiently advanced enough to make firefighting possible, then they could easily be adapted to the dropping of things that go boom. That'd make at least a few of us happy here. :icon_lol:

Pultacatt

November 12th, 2008, 00:06

Ian with all due respect to your reply that isn't figures. I would be interested in seeing overall figures over all not just dev shops such as Aerosoft and the likes.

I understand where you are coming from, I agree with your statements and I do appreciate that the civil market is stronger than the Military but as I say its is not as big a margin as one would expect.

IanP

November 12th, 2008, 02:26

You're not going to get figures. Any developers/publishers who have told me figures have done so in confidence, so I'm not going to go around repeating them in public without express permission to do so. Some of them frequent this place, so if they want to, I'm sure they'll say so themselves.

You can believe me or not, it's up to you. The information I posted above supports my statement and is publicly available. If you ask RAZBAM or Iris, though, you still won't get figures, but you might get a contradictory response regarding selling more military add-ons! :d

Edited to add: simMarket, specifically, is not a development house. They sell large numbers of add-ons from a range of sources. I'm still slightly worried about the number of sales of "Farmer Simulator", though! I specifically included Aerosoft's box sales because they sell boxed products for a number of developers "out of house" such as RealAir, PMDG and similar. None of the other non-specialist stores I visited provided "best seller" lists.

Ian P.

Tweek

November 12th, 2008, 03:17

I'm still slightly worried about the number of sales of "Farmer Simulator", though!

Driving a slow moving combine harvester, to me, sounds about as boring as flying a Boeing 747, on autopilot, over a featureless ocean for 10 hours... yet look at the high sales of the PMDG 747. :d

GT182

November 12th, 2008, 04:48

IanP

November 12th, 2008, 05:15

You could do firefighting within the sim easily, using the mission engine... I wonder whether the water ballast feature from gliders could be incorporated into a powered aircraft, out of interest?

Anyway. You set up a fire effect on the ground (which has already been done), fly a suitable aircraft through a box overhead that location and if an event (dropping "releasable objects" or possibly releasing water ballast) takes place within that box, end the fire effect and replace it with a steam effect and a new ground texture.

That must be possible. Anyone want a go? :)

Ian P.

Bjoern

November 12th, 2008, 06:34

Driving a slow moving combine harvester, to me, sounds about as boring as flying a Boeing 747, on autopilot, over a featureless ocean for 10 hours... yet look at the high sales of the PMDG 747. :d

Or flying a B-2 945645609 miles to the target and back. Or flying a F-16 an uneventful hour to the target area, doing an uneventful CAP for half an hour and flying back to base an hour. ;)

EgoR64

November 12th, 2008, 07:11

Hi Ian,

This would be correct, you could use some area rectangles around the huge blaze, toss some proximity triggers in and some counters to indicate how many times ye dropped your water load. Good fun.

Oh yea that reminds me add the ability to have AI drop payloads, is fun just to hang out and watch AI in action.

Cheers....

Lionheart

November 12th, 2008, 07:32

Or flying a B-2 945645609 miles to the target and back. Or flying a F-16 an uneventful hour to the target area, doing an uneventful CAP for half an hour and flying back to base an hour. ;)

There is a use for it! I agree.

I see it that people are using the platform (FS) to learn everything about flying a Boeing 747 to flying an F-16 (wether for fun or actual student).

FS, in my humble opinion is evolving so fast that Aces cant keep up and certainly Devs cant keep up. Most of the Dev community has disappeared or stayed in FS9. There are still not alot of people working in FSX yet. THere are far more then there were last year though which is good to see. But freeware models have almost halted hold for perhaps 5 people or groups in the world.

The more professional, elaborate, and powerful the system (and smoothness of its performance) the more the buyers of the platform. The more it offers, the more will buy it. Bottom line.

I wonder what FS will be like in 10 years...

Bill

Prowler1111

November 12th, 2008, 07:46

Or flying a B-2 945645609 miles to the target and back. Or flying a F-16 an uneventful hour to the target area, doing an uneventful CAP for half an hour and flying back to base an hour. ;)

Well(and really sorry for the shameless plug)you can do that right now with our A-6 package...like 2 to 3 hrs hunting down "scuds"(we´ll change that to real scuds launchers) and watching around in the desert....

Prowler

IanP

November 12th, 2008, 08:22

Or flying a B-2 945645609 miles to the target and back.

Naah, that was the RAF with a Vulcan - and they still managed to miss the runway at Port Stanley... :d

Ian P.

ncleobis

November 12th, 2008, 23:37

I think it is fairly obvious as why we want to use MSFS for military ops and not any other flight sim! I'm in a virtual sqn with other guys that already posted here, and the truth is that, yes, we do managed to get some great stuff going, the SAM's (still in development), AAR, Electronic warfare AI aircraft, landable carriers online, etc, but as said before by riptide, all thanks to our brilliant programer that can do miracles within FSX.

What we lack is a proper action/consequense engine in FS, I mean, a proper weapon system, even if nothing compared to falcon4.0, of course.

Back to the 1st part of the post...why we do choose to use fsx when we have other combat sims, as falcon 4.0 (the ultimate combat sim in my opinion), lock on, etc,etc....all these are great but they only have a few aircraft to fly, a limited area, limited modding capabilities...I mean, in FSX we can choose select an aircraft and simulate its real world missions, maybe it's an F-105 and we fly in thailand laos and vietnam and after we're done we have the ability to choose another aircraft and go to another part of the globe.

The thing with FS is that you have realistic navs, globe, aircraft systems, weather, stable online engine, etc,etc...it just gives you total freedom to easiy create scenarios, aircraft, etc,etc...all to recreate the real world as close as possible and NO OTHER combat sim can do that....they all are very limited when it comes to these kind of things...

To finnish my rambling, I would love to see some form of combat capabilites in FSXI even if as a separate addon, a bit like acceleration...

And please, please...don't come with the PC stuff...or that military users are a minority...I'm sure glider pilots are also a minority and yet, they did get an improved engine and utilities for them to use....which I think is great...just don't forget the other minorities... :)

IanP

November 13th, 2008, 00:12

ncleobis

November 13th, 2008, 00:44

I thought someone would pick on that :d

Lionheart

November 13th, 2008, 09:11

Why shouldn't we come with the "PC stuff"? It's a PC sim! Microsoft haven't managed to turn it into an Xbox title yet! :a1310: :d

Ian P.
(Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know.)
(Edit: Oh dear. My 200th Post-Crash post was a :censored: joke. :redf:)

Funny you mention this Ian... The first releases of the Beta of FSX (I can talk about this now) had on the bootup screen a regular joystick and a X-Box control console.

It was obvious that FSX was designed originally to be used (a version of it) in X-Box. The photo menu system of selecting planes was similar to racing games in X-Box.

If X-Box could link a Keyboard into it as well as the regular joystick, then its the same as any other PC except that its going to be for flying 'only' and not capable of doing anything else, (like checking emails, etc).

But......... (huge but here), if X-Box could run FSX with full sliders, have the keyboard 'and' joystick running (must have the keyboard) then I would buy it in a new york second! No ifs ands or buts.. I would get it fast. I have wanted to see/fly FSX with full sliders and see what its like and never have.

Bill

Lionheart

November 13th, 2008, 09:15

oh man.... Sitting here thinking about X-Box.. What if MS did a special X-Box just for FSX / FS11.... Complete with joystick, headset capability for multi-player, keyboard... Optional X-Box rudder pedals.

Might be an interesting marketing possibility for the X-Box group. Being able to run FSX at full sliders, not having to add things to your own personal computer, etc.. (GC's that are practically prototypes, new drivers, new OS systems, etc)... All simply put into its own box and runs proper right out of the box...!

hmmmmmmmmm.....

Bill

empeck

November 13th, 2008, 09:32

Funny you mention this Ian... The first releases of the Beta of FSX (I can talk about this now) had on the bootup screen a regular joystick and a X-Box control console.

FSX has been released as part of Games for Windows program. AFAIK all GfW games have to support Xbox360 gamepad. It's a GfW system requirement.

FSx for Xbox = no community addons. I don't think it's the best idea :)

Take a look at Unreal Tournament 3 game. PC version is available with game editor, maps and addons made with this editor doesn't work on Xbox360 at all (but they work on PS3 ;) ).

Besides, my PC isn't the best one available right now, but is more powerful than Xbox360 :)

mcjerkyls

November 13th, 2008, 09:42

only one problem with that lionheart....microsoft hasnt even got the xbox working properly yet. red ring of death anyone? the damn thing overheats. OVERHEATS. they couldnt just put another little fan in there? whats so hard about it? its in their bloodline to release before all bugs have been worked out. they just cant bring themselves to release a product that delivers what they promise. i think they ought to just finish something before they wet themselves with excitement and release it anyway

Paularx

November 13th, 2008, 09:59

The release before complete syndrome - is typical of any industry where accountants and marketing are the boss of dev's and engineers...:cost1:

Bjoern

November 13th, 2008, 10:59

Well(and really sorry for the shameless plug)you can do that right now with our A-6 package...like 2 to 3 hrs hunting down "scuds"(we´ll change that to real scuds launchers) and watching around in the desert....

Sounds...umm...really exciting...err...I think I'll enlist right now!
:icon_lol:
(SCNR)

Naah, that was the RAF with a Vulcan - and they still managed to miss the runway at Port Stanley... :d

I think the current record holder is said B-2 with a round trip from the USA to Serbia and back.

The release before complete syndrome - is typical of any industry where accountants and marketing are the boss of dev's and engineers...:cost1:

Until you can create the self-sustainable games programmer, I'm afraid that's the way things are.

Being a publisher isn't about greediness, it's about pumping money into something with an unpredictable outcome. I can understand if publishers want to see a finished product someday, since it's their money going down the drain. If a developer can't keep up with the schedule, solely because he wants to implement thousands of new features into his new baby, you'll get a half-arsed, but feature-rich piece of software. You're lucky if you can delay the release a bit to patch up the worst holes, but in the end you and your publisher would be better way off with one feature and a lot of bugs less.

I think the most of the problems with bugs in the gaming industry is badly working communication between publishers and developers and a lack of realistic goals from both sides.

Tweek

November 13th, 2008, 11:52

srgalahad

November 13th, 2008, 12:57

I was just reading a blog about Win7 and it really seemed to be applicable here (full text: http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=10575). In essence the one segment discussed an 'alternate reality' -- as you read, substitute MSFS or FS for Windows or 'operating system', etc. and adjust the prices accordingly...

"1. Make it the last shrink-wrapped OS

The old way of building and packaging operating systems in shrink-wrapped boxes that are released every few years is just not fast enough or nimble enough to meet the demands to today’s Internet-driven computing environment. It’s also counterproductive for an OS maker because you end up competing against yourself the way XP and Vista are now competing against each other.
There’s only one Windows, and it has merely evolved over time. That’s the message Microsoft needs to drive home by making Windows 7 the last shrink-wrapped version of the OS. From here on out, Microsoft should simply make Windows a constantly evolving platform with new features and functionality enhancements added several times a year through Windows Update.
The business model would be to turn this into a subscription product, albeit a very inexpensive one. As long as you have a current Windows subscription then you can continue to download new features, patches, and updates. If your subscription lapses then Windows still works but you can no longer download the new stuff, or any add-ons, and you can only download highly critical security patches.
For enterprises that are currently using Software Assurance, they are already buying Windows as part of a subscription so there would be no change in the business model for them. For consumers and small businesses who aren’t part of Software Assurance and typically buy Windows from OEMs such as Dell, Toshiba, and Hewlett-Packard, the Windows license that comes with their PC could last for three years and then it’s up to the buyer to pay something like $30-$40/year to renew. For those who want to build their own system, a full version of the OS could cost something like $50-$75 for the first year."

1. a FS Core with simple mapping and limited airports except for one high-detail continent (based on area of sale) and three planes (one 'advanced with VC to whet the appetite) -$15 comes with 3 yr tech subscription (bugfix)
2. Addon scenery to give you the full world (say $5 per continent, $20 for the "world pack"), addon planes from MS for those who can't afford the pricey stuff at $5-10
3. after market aircraft, scenarios and scenery install as now
4. subscription covers not only bugfixes but ongoing map updates, game engine updates and 'hardware compatibility' upgrades (no being behind the curve on a 3 year build cycle)
5. after the original 3 years, license is renewable at ($15/3 yrs)
At some point the user still gets behind the 'power curve' but since the game/sim content has been constantly upgraded it ports over to a new machine with the updates on the same license.

Sure it's a paradigm shift but I think the every-3-years reinvention of the wheel may have run it's course as a result of the speed of advancement on the hardware side. Instead of having to guess the future, the Core gets built to run today (and maybe next year) but gets improved as the drivers, video cards, CPU's all get developed or as the market demands more capabilities.

I'm sure traditional thinking will say it can't work but...

Rob

SkippyBing

November 14th, 2008, 04:09

Sure it's a paradigm shift but I think the every-3-years reinvention of the wheel may have run it's course as a result of the speed of advancement on the hardware side. Instead of having to guess the future, the Core gets built to run today (and maybe next year) but gets improved as the drivers, video cards, CPU's all get developed or as the market demands more capabilities.

Not a bad idea, in some ways X-Plane is already running like this, you buy a disc for Version 9 and that allows you to run any subversion from 9.00 to 9.99 as it's upgraded over its development cycle.
The only problem would be when there's a wholesale shift in the underlying engine due to new technologies like the change to multi-core processors or the upcoming Physics cards. However having a new core released every three years or so to take this into account shouldn't be insurmountable.

Silver Fox

November 14th, 2008, 08:55

Two problems off the top of my head...

1. How do we build add-ons for a constantly shifting target?

2. FS is open-infrastructure, how do you secure it against the kiddies who would want to steal the extra features... without having some nanny-ware constantly watching the program to see that it is all authorized?

It's an interesting idea, but I think that it would work easier for Windows than for FS.

Lionheart

November 14th, 2008, 09:23

Not a bad idea, in some ways X-Plane is already running like this, you buy a disc for Version 9 and that allows you to run any subversion from 9.00 to 9.99 as it's upgraded over its development cycle.
The only problem would be when there's a wholesale shift in the underlying engine due to new technologies like the change to multi-core processors or the upcoming Physics cards. However having a new core released every three years or so to take this into account shouldn't be insurmountable.

Interesting...

I see Austin at XP9 going a similar path as Apple, and I see Apple coming up with revolutionary new directions in program interactions, especially towards extreme simplicity of operation.

SilverFox,

I noticed that most all of the very first planes X-Plane has ever had are still in the main package, alongside the newest ones with VC's in them. So I think his platforms will continue (I think) to feature backwards compatability. (He doesnt change his XML code, gauge code, texture formats with each platform release).

Major_Spittle

November 14th, 2008, 11:21

1. a FS Core with simple mapping and limited airports except for one high-detail continent (based on area of sale) and three planes (one 'advanced with VC to whet the appetite) -$15 comes with 3 yr tech subscription (bugfix)
2. Addon scenery to give you the full world (say $5 per continent, $20 for the "world pack"), addon planes from MS for those who can't afford the pricey stuff at $5-10
3. after market aircraft, scenarios and scenery install as now
4. subscription covers not only bugfixes but ongoing map updates, game engine updates and 'hardware compatibility' upgrades (no being behind the curve on a 3 year build cycle)
5. after the original 3 years, license is renewable at ($15/3 yrs)
At some point the user still gets behind the 'power curve' but since the game/sim content has been constantly upgraded it ports over to a new machine with the updates on the same license.

Sure it's a paradigm shift but I think the every-3-years reinvention of the wheel may have run it's course as a result of the speed of advancement on the hardware side. Instead of having to guess the future, the Core gets built to run today (and maybe next year) but gets improved as the drivers, video cards, CPU's all get developed or as the market demands more capabilities.

I'm sure traditional thinking will say it can't work but...

Rob

Thanks Rob.

This is along the same lines as what I was talking about earlier. Releasing the Core FS and continuing development through Add-Ons so people can take the FS in the directions they want.

be that:

Combat
Senery
Sim Airline
Bush Pilot
Weather Realism
Space Flight
.....

The Next Gen FS could hit the market that much earlier and MS and Private developers could look at forums to guage the Demand for future add ons and development.

I have seen the future; and it involves internet downloads up the wazzo! :isadizzy:

srgalahad

November 14th, 2008, 16:56

I'll preface by saying that I am not a modeler or a programmer ( that ended with DOS 6.0) so I cannot answer, but I suppose I can postulate and let the pros respond

Two problems off the top of my head...

1. How do we build add-ons for a constantly shifting target?

I guess the depends on what the developer is trying to achieve, but I wouldn't think the target would shift all that frequently... tweaks in WinXP (not counting 7 million security patches) haven't been that frequent, and three Service Packs in 6 years for XP is pretty well spaced. Certainly a project with a two year gestation could run afoul of some issues, esp if it was trying to reach past the limits of the current sim... but that happened to FSX projects when Accel was shoved out anyway.

2. FS is open-infrastructure, how do you secure it against the kiddies(?parents?) who would want to steal the extra features... without having some nanny-ware constantly watching the program to see that it is all authorized?
Uh oh.. can of worms time again... I'm old enough to remember 'dongles' for the Apple II and for some PC software, constant passwords or requiring the HD/CD (gee, sounds like FS9) so it's spitting into the wind to think of anything being theft-proof. Let's not digress there... however, how does MS's Verification tool work? or the updates that require a purchased version of any of the addons (I don't know - I'm just tossing, remember?)

Rob